2019 (12) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which was cleared on payment of duty. The appellant had purchased SSCR Coils from M/s Shah Foils Ltd. And availed the cenvat credit on the invoices. The case was booked against M/s Shah Foils Ltd. for their various transactions to other buyers of their raw materials including present appellant. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 06.04.2015 was issued for denial of cenvat credit taken for the goods allegedly not received from M/s Shah Foils Ltd. under eight invoices. The reliance was placed on various statements recorded on the basis that supplies made to others were in doubt including present appellant. The Show Cause Notice was dropped by the adjudicating authority on the basis of evidences produced by the appellant in the form of tran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he findings given by the adjudicating authority. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account any findings given by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as it was held that the goods were physically transported to the appellants firm, therefore, the question of denial of credit on any ground was not permissible. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the witnesses whose statements were recorded, appeared for cross examination and given true facts and based on such cross examination Learned Assistant Commissioner dropped the charges leveled in the Show Cause Notice. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has totally erred relying upon the contention of the Revenue in the grounds of appeal without apprecia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsequential penalty was imposed on M/s Shah Foils Ltd. by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying on various statements from which the Commissioner (Appeals) contended that M/s Shah Foils Ltd. only issued the invoices but the goods were not supplied. From the order of the original authority, it is observed that the adjudicating authority considered the submission of almost all the witnesses and came to the conclusion that in no any statements, there is a direct charge that M/s Sun Textile Engineer were not supplied the goods. It was held that statements do not have any probity value so far as the goods is related to M/s Sun Textile Engineers is concerned. The statements of suppliers and the buyer are not inculpatory and the statements o....